FOIA Request Wording Re:30.06e (Govt Entity)

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm thinking that it would be interesting/useful/wise to put in a freedom of information act request to get a list of all improved properties owned or leased by city and county governments so that there would be a list of places to consult that we know cannot have a valid 30.06 sign due to 30.06e, much like the 30.06 site's governmental sister. I'm amazed by how many of these places have invalid 30.06 signs, as evidenced by discussions on the Texas 30.06 site. What information would be useful for this purpose? What changes should be made to the below wording? Do I ask for too much? Not enough? Not the right things? Is it worth knowing at all?

• Request: A list of all improved properties currently or customarily owned or leased by or to the [city/county of _______] including the name of the building or property if applicable (e.g. Pecan Grove Park); if the property is (a) owned, (b) leased by, or (c) leased to the [city/county of _______] (i) perpetually or (ii) temporarily/occasionally; the name and contact information of the leesor and leesee if applicable; the current or recurrent uses of the property (e.g. public recreation); the physical address of the property; if a part or the whole of the property is managed by a corporation or entity other than the [city/county of _______] and if so, what portion of the property's management is covered by another entity; and the name and contact information of any managing corporation or entities for the property or any part of the property if applicable (e.g. The Daughters of the Republic).
  
  Please also answer the following questions for each property, wherein "premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term "premises" does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
  
  Are the premises of the property accessible and/or open to the general populace at any time? (Y/N)
  Do the premises of the property customarily contain a functioning courtroom or court offices either on a temporary or permanent basis? (Y/N) If so, (a) what court(s) does the property contain and (b) are these rooms used for court purposes (i) full-time or (ii) temporarily/part-time?
  Do the premises of the property contain an educational institution as defined by Texas code? [Wording still being tweaked. See this thread.] (Y/N) If so, what is the name and type of educational institution?
  Are the premises of the property frequently or regularly--but not exclusively--the location of high school, collegiate, or professional sporting events or interscholastic events? (Y/N) If so, which?
  Are the premises of the property exclusively used as the location of high school, collegiate, and/or professional sporting events or interscholastic events? (Y/N) If so, which?
  Are the premises of the property customarily used as a polling location in governmental elections? (Y/N)
  Do the premises of the property contain a correctional facility as defined by Texas code? (Y/N) (I should probably reference the code but I'm too spent to look it up today.) If so, what is the name and type of correctional institution?
  
  Do the premises of any of the properties contain a racetrack? If so, which properties?
  Do the premises of any of the properties derive 51% or more of their income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption (i.e. required to post a TABC 51% sign)? If so, which properties?
  
  If any part of this request is determined to be confidential information not subject to a freedom of information act request, I request that the rest of the request be answered. (Isn't there a fancy legal wording for that that doesn't sound redundant?)

Any advice, constructive criticisms, changes, etc would be more than welcome! I've been writing this post piecemeal for a couple days so I'm sure there is considerable room for improvement.

[WildBill]

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish, but the Freedom of Information Act applies to documents controlled by the Federal Government. CHL 30.06 postings are only relevant in Texas.

[i8godzilla]

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish, but the Freedom of Information Act applies to documents controlled by the Federal Government. CHL 30.06 postings are only relevant in Texas.

While FOIA may only apply to Federal. This information is still available:

Open Records Act / Texas Public Information Act

Texas Government Code, Chapter 552, gives you the right to access government records; and an officer for public information and the officer’s agent may not ask why you want them. All government information is presumed to be available to the public. Certain exceptions may apply to the disclosure of the information. Governmental bodies shall promptly release requested information that is not confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision, or information for which an exception to disclosure has not been sought.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/index.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mr surveyor]

FOIA applies to all governments, I believe. I do know on the county level that I participate in, training in FOIA is mandatory. Also, I know for a fact that our local cities must respond to FOIA requests from citizens. It ain't just the fed.


surv

[A-R]

Hoi Polloi, I like your initiative with this. I'm interested to know what response you get.

[Hoi Polloi]

The purpose is to establish a list of places that may not validly restrict CHL holders from carrying without our needing to consult tax records, the county appraisal district, etc before leaving the house. It's basically the 30.06 site in reverse--not the places you're restricted, but the places you're definitely allowed. It would be great if we got it rolling if the 30.06 site would create a second page there on which people could indicate which cities/counties have requests in so as not to duplicate and then post their results as they receive them.

I'm surprised by how many of these places post invalid 30.06 signs and without unreasonable research, one doesn't have a means of knowing which 30.06 signs are valid are which are not. Cities and counties own all sorts of enterprises like museums, professional sports arenas, water parks, and more. If you walked up to a water park that was 30.06 posted, it would be reasonable to assume it was valid but if that water park is owned by the city then they can't validly restrict you from carrying there. The confusion it creates over which signs are valid and which aren't undermines the entire system of posting notice in the first place.

I think it is really important then that we define school and educational institution (based on the common law understanding if that's all there is, but referencing some code if possible) and ask if the property meets that narrow definition, not broadly ask if it has a school or educational institution because we don't want to leave it up to them to determine if the zoo's primary purpose is being an "educational institution" in the broad and vernacular uses of the words.

As long as the request is very carefully worded, I don't see any potential harm in collecting the information, especially if the workload and any cost (FOIA requests can charge a nominal amount per page for the paper and ink) is spread among many. That's my rationale anyway.

[ELB]

FOIA applies to the federal executive branch. The Public Information act, formerly known as the Open Records Act, applies to Texas state and local governments, and I see some official documents still use the term Open Records Act. ("Open Government" seems to be the buzzword for this type of thing now, but is not the name of the statutes). However, the term "FOIA" has been around long enough and is well known enough that it gets applied to similar state laws, just like "Xerox" means to copy a piece of paper regardless of the machine manufacturer.

Some suggestions:

I suspect you have visited the Texas AG's website for "Open Government" (Public Info Act) but if you haven't, you should: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/index.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You may find this of interest also: Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. Despite their FOIA monicker, they have information on the Texas PIA and in fact do lectures and seminars that the Texas AG approved as open government training for county and city bureaucrats. I only know what I see on the website, which is that it is basically a newspaper-sponsored outfit -- the Board of Directors, donors, and staff are heavily weighted with newspaper people, journalism profs, and lawyers. While I might not be happy with their ideologies, they may provide some useful mechanics (e.g. the PIA letter boilerplate). You might find these tips useful: http://www.foift.org/?page_id=302" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are asking for a lot stuff, and if were a bureaucratic stickler, I would argue that many of the questions you ask are not requests for records but requests for someone to do research for you. And I would refuse to do it as outside the scope of the PIA. You might want to rephrase the questions as requests for the types of records that would answer those questions, but that is still a LOT of work and records.

Also be aware that you may, even probably, have to pay for all this. They are supposed to call you if they estimate the charges to be more than $40, and then you can decide if you want to go on. Also some transfer media cost more than others (e.g. paper vs. CD). You can request the charges be waived because this information is in the public's interest, but this isn't automatically granted. Newspapers can make a decent argument for a public interest angle since they publish information, but can you? Do you even have blog to publish this on? Speaking of websites, some of this info, like buildings owned, may be available on their website already...

Were it me, I would break up this project in to pieces, and do requests as I go along. I will bet that any request to a city or county government for an inventory of all their buildings, owned, leased, rented, etc, will cause at least a bit of scurrying around just to find that answer, because I will bet there is no one place that has "the" answer. It is probably spread among the governmental units, and the bigger the unit, the less likely they will have a single consolidated list, because I doubt they manage that way. There may be a city building maintenance unit, but they probably don't keep lists of leased buildings that have contract maintenance. When you do get the records, don't expect it to be a nice neat list already formatted to your needs -- they will simply be copies of records in whatever format they are maintained in, and may duplicate each other, have confusing acronyms, and so forth. All I am saying here is that the inventory of buildings is probably going to be a major effort on your part all by itself, never mind determining the 30.06 status of each one. You may want to target your requests towards buildings where you know a 30.06 sign is posted, just to keep this from consuming the rest of your life.

I am not trying to rain on your parade, I have actually been think of a similar project myself, and these are some of the things I ran across while checking out the Public Information Act. My first thought when I saw your letter was, "Wow, he is asking for a lot," hence my suggestion to break it up into more digestible chunks.

Oh and this: "If any part of this request is determined to be confidential information not subject to a freedom of information act request, I request that the rest of the request be answered. (Isn't there a fancy legal wording for that that doesn't sound redundant?)" I think your language is just fine. A nit would be to drop the "confidential information" and substitute "public information act" for "freedom of information act." But your basic sentence is just fine.

Good luck.

[Hoi Polloi]

Ah! OK. So what about this? It could be put into an Access type database sorted by address so that the sorting and overlapping is handled automatically once the different lists are inserted. Does this get rid of the analysis issue?

• Request: The addresses of all improved properties owned by [the city/county/etc of _______] including the name of the building or property if applicable (e.g. Pecan Grove Park).
• Request: The addresses of all properties being leased to [the city/county/etc of _______] including the name and contact information of the leesor.
• Request: The addresses of all properties owned by [the city/county/etc of _______] which are being leased to any other entity, including the name and contact information of the lessee. (B) The addresses of all properties owned by [the city/county/etc of _______] which are being leased to any other entity which derive 51% or more of their income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption (i.e. required to post a TABC 51% sign).
• Request: The addresses of all [the city/county/etc of _______]'s permanent courtrooms or court offices or of any locations that are regularly used in the capacity of courtrooms or court offices on a part-time basis (as defined by whatever).
• Request: The addresses of all schools and educational institutions (as defined by whatever) that [the city/county/etc of _______] manages. (Is manage the word I want? I'm thinking there are a lot of potential sources here which would each need to be queried separately--city, county, state, ISDs, community college districts, anything else?)
• Request: The addresses of all properties customarily used as a polling location for governmental elections in [the city/county/etc of _______].
• Request: The addresses of all correctional facilities (as defined by whatever) that [the city/county/etc of _______] manages.
• Request: The address of any racetrack owned by or leased by or to [the city/county/etc of _______].
• Request: The address of any business owned by [the city/county/etc of _______] (including those leased to others) which derives 51% or more of their income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption (i.e. required to post a TABC 51% sign).

I'm not sure how to do this one:
Are the premises of the property exclusively used as the location of high school, collegiate, and/or professional sporting events or interscholastic events? (Y/N) If so, which?

[Kythas]

Ah! OK. So what about this? It could be put into an Access type database sorted by address so that the sorting and overlapping is handled automatically once the different lists are inserted. Does this get rid of the analysis issue?

Access database?

If you don't want to spend money on SQL Server, at least go with MySQL or SQL Server Express.

Sorry, but I work with databases all day and Access is the worst out there.

[couzin]

You are asking for a lot stuff, and if were a bureaucratic stickler, I would argue that many of the questions you ask are not requests for records but requests for someone to do research for you. And I would refuse to do it as outside the scope of the PIA. You might want to rephrase the questions as requests for the types of records that would answer those questions, but that is still a LOT of work and records.

I agree - given the budget cutbacks and personnel shortages - you will probably be sent a response back stating you should directly contact the property that you are inquiring about. Also agree with ELB - that you will likely have to pay for any research and data collection.

In summary - I'm still not sure why you are collecting this information. Is it that hard to look for a 30.06 signage or ask someone here if they know if (insert name of facility here) is posted or has metal detectors? If you ask the questions of certain facilities and they note that their signage or 'no guns allowed' restriction is not in compliance, will a legal 30.06 sign be up within 24 hours. Sometimes stirring the pot raises a stink...

[kahrfreak]

While what you're trying to do seems commendable, I'm concerned that your requests will draw unwanted attention to those of us who are CHLs, and provide fodder to the liberals who thrive on drawing attention to concealed carry. I can't help but see what you're doing as something akin to "tickling the dragon's tail" (what the scientists on the Manhattan Project called it when they would take a nuclear reaction as far as they dare without actually starting a chain reaction). I personally have no problem figuring out where I'm permitted to carry, and where concealed carry is illegal. If you're that confused, perhaps you need to take some time to study the applicable Texas statutes again.

Please think about what you are doing. Remember, your information requests are themselves public records. In this era of security theatre, your very actions might be construed by some government officials as a precursor to terrorist activity. I personally wouldn't embark on this crusade without the advice of an attorney.

[Salty1]

I am in full agreement with kahrfreak's post. If one is looking for attention this is a sure way to accomplish that. Personally I do not want my name construed in any manor that the law enforcement community could be concerned with as negative or a potential risk to the community. If this is a need to know scenerio then I would study the laws until I knew every word in them along with any associated case law. Out of sight, out of mind has a lot of merit, personally I stay away from spot lights.....

[Hoi Polloi]

I genuinely do not understand the responses I'm receiving.

My thought process is that there is a list of locations on which CHL holders have a legal right to carry and yet a sizable number of these locations post invalid 30.06 signs saying you are restricted from carrying there.

1) This is a governmental entity trying to deny its citizens their legal right.
2) As CHL holders are verifiably a historically law-abiding group of individuals in comparison to the general populace, when confronted with an ambiguous situation, they are likely to err on the side of caution and to disarm even if the sign might be invalid, meaning the government's attempts to deny their legal right by posting invalid signs are more likely to be effective, creating a system where the govt takes advantage of a group of people's honesty in order to deny them legal rights.
3) This creates confusion and distrust in the signage system such that the validity of every sign is called into question (as evidenced by the many threads here asking if this sign or that is valid and enforceable). By creating a subjective system in which judgment calls must regularly be made, it is inevitable that both LEOs and CHL holders will have situations in which they call it incorrectly and the inevitability of both a CHL holder and a LEO making bad calls in the same circumstance could lead to the loss of freedoms or even life.
4) It is an unreasonable burden to place on an individual that he become familiar with the property deeds of every property he enters which appears to be a government-owned property and that he second-guess the validity of legal signage.
5) This puts CHL holders at greater personal risk either if they carry or they do not. If they carry past the invalid sign and a concealed weapon unintentionally shows (while imprudent, its not illegal) or is found during a search (unforeseeable), others on the property and responding LEOs might believe the sign to be valid which could lead to the individual creating unnecessary alarm, being detained, arrested, or even fired upon (a la Erik Scott). If they don't carry past the sign, they forego their legal rights and place themselves at risk of not being able to protect their life or property.


The list I'm talking about would not in itself be controversial. It's all the places you have a legal right to carry under a CHL. Nothing special. I don't say that in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge kind of way. I really don't see any issue with the list. It doesn't advocate for any change, doesn't incite people to action, nothing. It just compiles data about your current rights. Do with it what you will.

By making it public information in an easily accessible database (if someone volunteered to put it into MySQL, I'd be thrilled! lol), it would (1) simply inform CHL holders and the general public of the locations of known places they have a legal right to carry, (2) thus eliminating the confusion that the invalid signs create and minimizing the risks to CHL holders by allowing them to make fully-informed decisions without burdensome investigations. (3) The list could also be used to inspire legislative change by showing the excessive burden placed on the CHL community and the legal, peaceable methods the CHL community employed to adhere to the law when exercising their legal rights. (4) If a person, God forbid, chose to enter an establishment which he had a legal right to carry on through 30.06e which had an invalid 30.06 sign and was then detained or arrested for violating the unenforceable 30.06 sign (which seems to me a very distant reality but of course within the realm of possibilities), it would be an accurate and established resource of source documents which could serve to defuse the situation, address LEO concerns, and serve as a defense in trial that the city had supplied documentation which showed that it was not able to restrict CHL holders from carrying prior to the incident and that the person acted in good faith.

Given my understanding of the situation, I don't understand the comments alluding to the can of worms it will open and the fear of what it might cause. I don't say this to mean that I am determined to see it through. I am very much just wanting a discussion about what exactly others are thinking and fearing because I'm not seeing it from here--and I am more than happy to acknowledge that I don't see much from my limited perspective, which is why I value the input of those here.

[kahrfreak]

I genuinely do not understand the responses I'm receiving.
My thought process is that there is a list of locations on which CHL holders have a legal right to carry and yet a sizable number of these locations post invalid 30.06 signs saying you are restricted from carrying there.

There is no such list (otherwise it would already have been published). The applicable Texas statutes tell you what you're looking for.

By making it public information in an easily accessible database (if someone volunteered to put it into MySQL, I'd be thrilled! lol), it would ...

Already done: http://www.texas3006.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Why don't you leverage off work that's already been done in this regard?

Given my understanding of the situation, I don't understand the comments alluding to the can of worms it will open and the fear of what it might cause. I don't say this to mean that I am determined to see it through. I am very much just wanting a discussion about what exactly others are thinking and fearing because I'm not seeing it from here--and I am more than happy to acknowledge that I don't see much from my limited perspective, which is why I value the input of those here.

I speak only for myself. But, there's some wisdom in the saying "Don't ask the question if you don't want to know the answer." Of course you want to know the answers to the questions you ask. But think about this: Do you really want a detailed list of where it's "legal" to carry? What if you stir the spark in some anti-gun legislator to introduce legislation that would compile and publish such a list, with the caveat that if something is *not* on the list, concealed carry is illegal? At that point, we move from an "opt-in" system for declaring concealed handguns off-limits to an "opt-out" system. Personally, I prefer the "opt-in" method.

You need to think deeply about the unintended consequences of your actions, and how they might affect your fellow CHLers. At one time many years ago, I too was very active in this type of activism. In the end, the government *will* wear you down, given that they have nearly infinite resources, and yours are very limited. Is this really something you want to start, and if started, are you willing to follow through with it its logical conclusion, despite the roadblocks that *will* be put in your way?

[1981]

As someone who processes Open Records requests for a living, I can tell you that your request is a non-starter. You have the following issues at least:

1. The Tx PIA only applies to DOCUMENTS that are ALREADY in existence. The way your request is worded, you are not asking for documents, just information. Unless the gov. entities you are submitting requests to already have lists of the info you are looking for drawn up, you are going to get a nice letter saying that they have no documents responsive to your request.
2. Even if you reworded your request to ask for the documents that contain the info you are seeking, you are just going to get a wad of unorganized deeds, contracts, reports, etc. Additionally, on a request a broad as yours, you would probably be required to prepay the estimated costs of the gov. entity in preparing and copying the info (10 cents per copy and $15 per man hour spent retrieving, searching, and copying files. The gov. entity can also charge you the actual personnel costs if the person doing the work makes more than $15 an hour) On this type of request, that could easily reach a few thousand dollars for just one medium to large gov. entity.

Honestly, I don't think there is any way you can succeed with this request under the PIA, it's going to be too easy to trip you up on a technicality or justify prohibitive charges. JMHO, FWIW